Delhi District Court
State vs Parmod Kumar on 20 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL SAINI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
DLSH020085182021
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.: 138/2021
Police Station: Jyoti Nagar
(CIS No. 5256/2021)
b Date of the commission of : 10.04.2021
the offence
c Name of the Complainant : ASI Birsain
d Name of Accused person : Parmod Kumar S/o Shri Ram
and his parentage and Pal Singh R/o: House No. D-
residence 29, Indra Puri, Loni
Ghaziabad, UP.
e Offence complained of : u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
f Plea of the Accused and : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquitted u/s 25/54/59 Arms
Act
h Order reserved on : 20.12.2025
i Order pronounced on : 20.12.2025
Brief statement of facts of the case and trial proceedings:
1.The case of the prosecution against the accused Parmod Kumar S/o Rampal Singh is that on 10.04.2021, at about 7.40 pm at Near Primary School, Durgapuri, on 100 foota road, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife, in contravention of DAD State vs. Parmod Kumar Digitally signed by FIR No. 138/2021 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act RAHUL RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar Pages SAINI Date: 1 of 14 2025.12.20 15:44:08 +0530 notification and had committed the offence. The accused was booked with the offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act and FIR was registered.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused on 04.10.2021 and cognizance was taken on 17.12.2021. On appearance of the accused, the copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused on 21.09.2022in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Thereafter, vide order 02.03.2023, charge was framed against the accused under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Subsequently, prosecution evidence was led and in order to prove its version, prosecution has examined only three witnesses, out of five witnesses.
PW1: SI Birsain: He deposed that on 10.04.2021, he was performing his duty with Ct.Sanjay in ERV-56 and they were conducting patrolling duty in the jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar and at about 7.40 pm, they reached Durgapuri Chowk and started checking the vehicles which were coming from the side of Chajjupur and was going towards Durgapuri Chowk. After that they saw one person who was coming from the side of Chajjupur and was going towards Durgapuri Chowk and after seeing them in uniform, he turned back and started moving fastly. On suspicion, they had apprehended him after taking some distance who revealed his name as Parmod Kumar. Thereafter, he took search of the said person and recovered one buttondar knife from his right side pocket of his wearing pant. After that, he had given information regarding recovery of buttondar knife to duty officer. After sometime, IO/ASI Virender Kumar reached there and they State vs. Parmod Kumar Digitally signed by FIR No. 138/2021 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act RAHUL RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar SAINI Date:Pages 2 of 14 2025.12.20 15:44:15 +0530 handed over the case property and accused to the IO. IO recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/A and put the said knife on a white paper and prepared its sketch memo which is Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, IO took measurement of the said knife ie.. total length of the knife is 31.6 cm, length of the blade was 13.6 cm, length of the handle was 18 cm, and width of the said knife was 3 cm. IO had prepared pullanda of the said knife and sealed the same with the help of seal of VK. The seizure memo of the case property is Ex. PW1/C and after use, the seal was handed over to him. IO prepared rukka and same was handed over to Ct. Sanjay for registration of the FIR and accordingly, Ct. Sanjay went to PS and got registered the FIR in the present matter. After registration of the FIR, Ct. Sanjay came back at the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of the FIR to the IO. IO prepared site plan at his instance which is Ex. PW1/D. IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo and personal search memo which are Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F and further recorded disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex. PW1/G. Thereafter, they along with accused and case property went to GTB Hospital where medical examination of the accused was conducted. After that they went to PS. Case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused was sent to lock up.
IO recorded his statement.
Witness had correctly identified the accused as well as the case property i.e. knife Ex. .P1.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he had made DD entry before leaving PS, however, he did not recollect its number. Further, he did not hand over any such entry to the IO. Witness admitted that he had not Digitally signed by RAHUL State vs. Parmod Kumar RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
FIR No. 138/2021 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 2025.12.20 15:44:22 +0530 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 3 of 14 mentioned the registration no. of ERV gypsy in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C and that he had not disclosed the description as well as name of the accused in his DD entry and he had also not disclosed this fact in my DD entry from where the said knife was recovered and he had also did not tell about the measurement of the knife. Witness admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and that no written notice was served upon any public persons who refused to join in his presence. IO did not give notice to any public person who refused to join investigation. Further, he did not mention the distance in site plan from where the accused had tried to flee away and from where he was caught hold by him. He did not mention in the site plan Ex. PW1/D the spot from where the accused had fled away after seeing him. He did not check whether any CCTV camera was installed near the spot. Further, he admitted that he did not mention the place where he was standing and where the ERV was parked in the site plan. IO did not give any notice to the watchman of the school to join investigation. Witness admitted that he did not prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over memo. He did not make any videography and photography at the time of recovery of the case property. He had not filled up the FSL form at the spot as the same was filled up by the IO. IO did not take the fingerprints of the accused at the time of recovery from the accused.
Witness had denied the suggestion that the case property was planted upon accused or that accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter or that he was arrested from his house despite the spot or that he never visited at the spot and all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS. Digitally State vs. Parmod Kumar signed by RAHUL FIR No. 138/2021 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar SAINI Date:
Pages 4 of 14 2025.12.20 15:44:28 +0530 PW 2 DHG Ct. Sanjay:- He had deposed the similar version as deposed by PW1 Birsain in his statement as they both were on patrolling duty together.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he made DD entry before leaving PS, however, he did not recollect its number. He did not hand over any such entry to the IO. He did not recollect the registration no. of ERV which he was driving on the day of incident. Witness admitted tht he had not mentioned the registration no. of ERV gypsy in my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further admitted that he had not disclosed the description as well as name of the accused in my DD entry. He admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and that no written notice was served upon any public persons who refused to join in his presence. Further, IO did not give notice to any public person who refused to join investigation.He did not check whether any CCTV camera was installed near the spot. He admitted that he had not mentioned the place where he was standing and where the ERV was parked in the site plan and that no seal handing over memo and receiving over memo was prepared in his presence. ASI Birsain did not make any videography and photography at the time of recovery of the case property.
Witness had denied the suggestion that the case property was planted upon accused or that accused had beeb falsely implicated in the present matter and he was arrested from his house despite the spot or that he never visited at the spot and all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS. Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
State vs. Parmod Kumar 2025.12.20
15:44:36
+0530
FIR No. 138/2021 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 5 of 14 PW 3:ASI Virender Kumar:- He had deposed that on 10.04.2021, he had received DD No. 83A regarding recovery of buttondar knife which is Ex. PW3/A. Thereafter, he went to the spot i.e. at Durgapuri chowk near Primary School where he met ASI Birsain and DHG Ct. Sanjay who handed over the accused and case property to him. Further he had requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and went away without telling their names and addresses. He had recorded statement of ASI Birsain which is already Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, he had put the said knife on a white paper and prepared its sketch memo which is already Ex. PW1/B and took measurement of the said knife ie. total length of the knife is 31.6 cm, length of the blade was 13.6 cm, length of the handle was 18 cm, and width of the said knife was 3 cm. After that, he had prepared pullanda of the said knife and sealed the same with the help of seal of VK. The seizure memo of the case property is Ex. PW1/C. After use, the seal was handed over to ASI Birsain.
He had prepared rukka which is Ex. PW3/B and same was handed over to Ct. Sanjay for registration of the FIR and accordingly, he went to PS and got registered the FIR in the present matter. After registration of the FIR, he came back at the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of the FIR to him. He had prepared site plan at the instance of ASI Birsain which is already Ex. PW1/D. After that he had arrested the accused vide arrest memo and personal search memo which are Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F and had also recorded disclosure statement of the accused which is already Ex. PW1/G. Thereafter, they along with accused and case property went to GTB Hospital where medical examination of the accused was State vs. Parmod Kumar Digitally FIR No. 138/2021 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 6 of 14 SAINI Date:
2025.12.20 15:44:43 +0530 conducted. After that they went to PS. Case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused was sent to lock up.
Further, he had recorded statement of ASI Birsain and DHG Ct Sanjay and relieved them.
On the next day, he had produced the accused before the court and accused was released on bail as per directions of the court.
He had obtained DAD Notification dated 29.10.1980 from the concerned Department which is Ex. PW3/C. After completion of investigation, he had prepared chargesheet and same was submitted in the court.
Witness had identified the accused as well as the case property Ex.P1 During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness admitted that he had received DD entry 83A from DO at about 8.30 pm. He had left the PS at around 8.30 pm as soon as he had received the DD entry. He had reached at the spot at about 8.35 pm. Witness admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and that no written notice was served upon any public persons who refused to join in his presence. He did not check whether any CCTV camera was installed near the spot. He did not give any notice to the watchman of the school to join investigation. He had prepared seal handing over memo and receiving over memo and the same was handed over to ASI Birsain. Further, he did not make any videography and photography at the time of recovery of the case property. He had not filled up the FSL form at the spot. He did not take the fingerprints of the accused at the time of recovery from the accused. Accused was wearing grey colour pant and State vs. Parmod Kumar Digitally signed by FIR No. 138/2021 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act RAHUL RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 7 of SAINI Date: 14 2025.12.20 15:44:50 +0530 shirt. He did not seize the clothes of the accused. Witnss admitted that seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of the FIR and nothing was changed after registration of the FIR.
Witness had denied the suggestion that the case property was planted upon accused or that accused has been falsely impli- cated in the present matter or that he was arrested from his house despite the spot or that he never visited at the spot and all pro- ceedings were conducted while sitting at PS.
5. It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 15.09.2025, witness mentioned at Sl. No. 2 ASI Naresh Kumar was dropped from the list of witnesses as accused has admitted the genuineness of the FIR along with Certificate u/s 65-B of IEA which is Ex. A1(Colly) qua the present case in his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
6. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 27.10.2025 separately wherein accused claimed to be innocent and denied allegations against him and stated that no knife was recovered from his possession and the same is planted upon him. Accused opted to not lead any Defence Evidence. Accordingly, bringing the trial to an end, final arguments were heard from Ld. Counsel for the Accused as well Ld. APP for the State.
Appreciation of Evidence
7. The arguments were addressed by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. LAC for the accused in detail. State vs. Parmod Kumar FIR No. 138/2021 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Digitally PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 8 of signed by 14 RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.12.20 15:44:58 +0530 Ld. APP for the State argued that the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on account of the unfeterred testimonies of the prime prosecution witnesses i.e. the complainant and IO. Ld. APP for the State further argued that this case merits conviction of the accused as the prosecution case stands firmly on its own footing and merely because of absence of public witnesses, the veracity of police witnesses does not stand negated.
Vehemently denying the arguments of Ld. APP for the State, Ld. LAC for the Accused argued that the Accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has been made only a victim of circumstances. It was further argued by Ld. LAC for the Accused that nothing was recovered from the possession of the Accused and this is the reason why no independent witness has been brought by prosecution in this matter. Hence, Ld. LAC for the Accused strongly argued for acquittal of the Accused in this matter.
Submissions have been duly heard. Record has been carefully perused.
8. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the Accused. Further, it is also a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the Accused. Also, it is a State vs. Parmod Kumar RAHUL FIR No. 138/2021 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 9 of 14 Digitally signed by RAHUL SAINI Date: 2025.12.20 15:45:05 +0530 settled proposition of criminal law that Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the Accused to acquittal.
9. Evaluating the facts and evidence discussed above, at the outset, it comes out that no independent witness was joined in the investigation. The Hon'ble supreme court in State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh [AIR 1994 SC 1872] , held that :
"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the Accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions. [Emphasis supplied]"
10. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that as per the site plan the area from where the Accused was apprehended was busy public road and despite that no public witness has been joined and therefore, absence of public witnesses from the investigation becomes even more apparent. Further, no notice has been served to any of the public persons who did not join the investigation.
Considering the above facts, it comes out that there was no lack of time and opportunity with the IO to associate some Digitally signed by RAHUL State vs. Parmod Kumar RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
FIR No. 138/2021 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 2025.12.20 15:45:12 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 10 of 14 +0530 independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with the provisions of code of criminal procedure.
The above stated observation of this court is fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemraj vs. State Of Haryana [AIR 2005 SC 2110] as follows:
"the fact that no independent witness though available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case..."
Furthermore, in case titled Roop Chand vs. State of F [1999 (1)C.L.R 69], the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & that:
"...It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful..."
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.12.20 15:45:26 State vs. Parmod Kumar +0530 FIR No. 138/2021 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 11 of 14
11. Moving further, this Court is conscious of precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Safiullah vs. State, [1993 (1) Rcr (CRIMINAL) 622] , that :
"The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. ..... Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the Accused."
The case property in the present matter was lying in the Malkhana of the same police station where the police officials having the possession of seal were posted. There was ample opportunity for tampering with the case property. Hence, considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be given to the Accused.
12. Besides all this, in the present case, the aforesaid lapse on the part of police officials assumes significance on account of another grave contradiction apparent in the document Ex. PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. The sketch memo of the knife Ex. PW1/B and seizure memo of the knife Ex. PW1/C bear the number of FIR. As per the rukka and testimony of witnesses, the sketch memo of the knife and seizure memo were prepared prior to registration of FIR. If that be so, then it is questionable as to how Ex. PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C bear the FIR number. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the case property or number of the said FIR was inserted in the document after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously questions the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about the recovery of the case property in the manner alleged by the State vs. Parmod Kumar Digitally FIR No. 138/2021 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act signed by RAHUL PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 12 of 14 RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.12.20 15:45:32 +0530 prosecution. That being so, the benefit arising out of such a situation must necessarily go to the Accused.
In this regard, reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Mohd Hasim V/S State [1999 VI AD (DELHI) 569] wherein it was observed:
"...documents prepared before registering the FIR bears FIR numbers, meaning thereby either FIR was recorded posterior in time or that documents were prepared after the recording of FIR, and in both cases, prosecution case would collapse."
13. Further, in order to ensure fair investigation, the prosecution witnesses must have offered their personal search to some independent witness. However, as no such precaution was taken by prosecution witnesses the doubt as to the false plantation of the case property upon the Accused cannot be ruled out. In S. L. Goswami Vs. State Of M.P., [1972 CRI.L.J 511 (SC)] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"... in our view, the onus to proving all the ingredient of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the Accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in case where the defence of the Accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the Accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the Accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredient of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the Accused and the Accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which vests upon the prosecution..."
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.12.20 15:45:44 State vs. Parmod Kumar +0530 FIR No. 138/2021 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 13 of 14 This also raises doubt about the recovery of the said case property from the present Accused and strengthens the possibility of planting of the case property upon the Accused.
Conclusion
14. The onus and duty to prove the case against the Accused was upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the Accused.
15. In view of above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Accused Parmod Kumar S/o Rampal Singh stands acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act framed in the present case. Case property be confiscated to the State. Same be destroyed.
16. Accused is directed to furnish the bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary Digitally compliance. signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.12.20 Announced in the open court 15:45:51 +0530 on 20.12.2025 (Rahul Saini) Judicial Magistrate First Class-08(Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts,Delhi 20.12.2025 [This judgment contains 14 signed pages] [This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.] State vs. Parmod Kumar FIR No. 138/2021 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 14 of 14